Since I can't really debate ATM, I compiled a list of debate topics- http://www.debate.org.... If anyone's interested in debating these(it will be at least a month), post your name and the topic so that I can at least formulate a case.

At 6/16/2011 2:27:08 PM, Merda wrote:He's been going on about it for a while. Debate me Kinesis!(in a month)

I don't even understand what there is to debate. If you deny the validity of evaluative judgements (one state of affairs is better than another state of affairs) then how can you affirm the resolution "Same-sex marriage should be legal"? It makes as much sense as denying that any mathematical claims are valid, and then affirming the resolution "4 X 8 = 32".

At 6/16/2011 2:27:08 PM, Merda wrote:He's been going on about it for a while. Debate me Kinesis!(in a month)

I don't even understand what there is to debate. If you deny the validity of evaluative judgements (one state of affairs is better than another state of affairs) then how can you affirm the resolution "Same-sex marriage should be legal"? It makes as much sense as denying that any mathematical claims are valid, and then affirming the resolution "4 X 8 = 32".

The argument is that moral facts exist. I do not deny that people pass evaluative judgements though. As to the SSM debate, it does not rest on morality at all. I am not arguing that the state of affairs would be "better" if SSM was or was not legal, though I could argue that it would be more conductive to human happiness or welfare. The argument is more like Peter Singer's argument for animal rights. If you accept proposition x(racism and sexism are unjustifiable), you must accept proposition y(speciecism is unjustifiable). So if heterosexual couples are allowed to marry for so and so reasons, it is unjustifiable to disallow homosexual couples to marry. We first accept a certain proposition and then argue from there. No morals, just logic.

At 6/16/2011 2:27:08 PM, Merda wrote:He's been going on about it for a while. Debate me Kinesis!(in a month)

I don't even understand what there is to debate. If you deny the validity of evaluative judgements (one state of affairs is better than another state of affairs) then how can you affirm the resolution "Same-sex marriage should be legal"? It makes as much sense as denying that any mathematical claims are valid, and then affirming the resolution "4 X 8 = 32".

Its possible to grant the desirability of a policy without linking it to any question of normative ethics - if thats what I think he is thinking.

At 6/16/2011 2:27:08 PM, Merda wrote:He's been going on about it for a while. Debate me Kinesis!(in a month)

I don't even understand what there is to debate. If you deny the validity of evaluative judgements (one state of affairs is better than another state of affairs) then how can you affirm the resolution "Same-sex marriage should be legal"? It makes as much sense as denying that any mathematical claims are valid, and then affirming the resolution "4 X 8 = 32".

The argument is that moral facts exist. I do not deny that people pass evaluative judgements though. As to the SSM debate, it does not rest on morality at all. I am not arguing that the state of affairs would be "better" if SSM was or was not legal, though I could argue that it would be more conductive to human happiness or welfare. The argument is more like Peter Singer's argument for animal rights. If you accept proposition x(racism and sexism are unjustifiable), you must accept proposition y(speciecism is unjustifiable). So if heterosexual couples are allowed to marry for so and so reasons, it is unjustifiable to disallow homosexual couples to marry. We first accept a certain proposition and then argue from there. No morals, just logic.

At 6/16/2011 2:41:16 PM, Merda wrote:The argument is that moral facts exist. I do not deny that people pass evaluative judgements though.

But you deny that those judgements actually express statements of truth or falsity. The adjective 'good' taken in an objective sense has no correlate on your view.

As to the SSM debate, it does not rest on morality at all. I am not arguing that the state of affairs would be "better" if SSM was or was not legal, though I could argue that it would be more conductive to human happiness or welfare.

You could, but without an underlying structure of normativeness that would be pointless.

The argument is more like Peter Singer's argument for animal rights. If you accept proposition x(racism and sexism are unjustifiable), you must accept proposition y(speciecism is unjustifiable). So if heterosexual couples are allowed to marry for so and so reasons, it is unjustifiable to disallow homosexual couples to marry. We first accept a certain proposition and then argue from there. No morals, just logic.

Seriously? If we assume that the moral, normative statement 'racism and sexism are unjustifiable' is true THEN we must accept an entailed normative claim? That's like denying that cheese exists and then saying 'look, but if we accept proposition x(cheddar exists) then we must accept proposition y(brie exists). It's like building a house of cards without a bottom layer. You're blatantly smuggling a moral presupposition into your argument while simultaneously denying that moral claims are valid.

At 6/16/2011 2:41:16 PM, Merda wrote:The argument is that moral facts exist. I do not deny that people pass evaluative judgements though.

But you deny that those judgements actually express statements of truth or falsity. The adjective 'good' taken in an objective sense has no correlate on your view.

True I guess.

As to the SSM debate, it does not rest on morality at all. I am not arguing that the state of affairs would be "better" if SSM was or was not legal, though I could argue that it would be more conductive to human happiness or welfare.

You could, but without an underlying structure of normativeness that would be pointless.

The "underlying structure" need not be moral though. When we deal with political and social issues, a lot of the time it is centered around rights based theories or forms of utilitarianism. Just because I do not believe that those theories are objectively correct does not mean that I can't play ball. I simply assume the premise in my argument, and go from there. It does not mean that that is my actual justification for my argument. It just makes it easier to debate when the debaters at least agree on a base on which to argue from.

The argument is more like Peter Singer's argument for animal rights. If you accept proposition x(racism and sexism are unjustifiable), you must accept proposition y(speciecism is unjustifiable). So if heterosexual couples are allowed to marry for so and so reasons, it is unjustifiable to disallow homosexual couples to marry. We first accept a certain proposition and then argue from there. No morals, just logic.

Seriously? If we assume that the moral, normative statement 'racism and sexism are unjustifiable' is true THEN we must accept an entailed normative claim? That's like denying that cheese exists and then saying 'look, but if we accept proposition x(cheddar exists) then we must accept proposition y(brie exists). It's like building a house of cards without a bottom layer. You're blatantly smuggling a moral presupposition into your argument while simultaneously denying that moral claims are valid.

They are two different arguments though. In my list it does not say, "Moral facts do not exist and SSM should be legal." The SSM debate and most others on the list follow Singer's formula where I argue from an assumed premise, while the more metaethical debate on moral realism, I argue on the validity of premises. My debates don't always center on my personal beliefs. Sometimes I have to argue in a way that my opponent and I can have common ground to work off of.